@ hevach
Fair points about the differences to the exploration of the New World

But it is pretty certain that a one way trip is more viable than a two way trip. There have been plenty of serious scientists arguing this, to the extent that even NASA is now considering to take this option on board for their Mars programme.

There are a few reasons why it is more viable. Obviously the costs of the return verhicle are enormous, in fact, in the Appollo missions it added more than 50% to the costs I think. Mainly because of the significant weight it involves. With the current budget squeeze on space programmes, that matters a lot.

But also we are talking about long missions. The mission time with returning the astronauts would take roughly 2 and a half years. It is very doubtful or exposure to no and low gravity for that lenght of time makes it possible for the astronauts to be more than cripples on earth, or even survive that at all. And that is worsened by the prolonged exposure to radiation, which is most risky during the space travel, which time is doubled in a return flight. So...the likelyhood of them not surviving a return is there already. So, an enormous amount of money for a very risky outcome.

It turns out there are plenty of very qualified people that are a bit older, let's say, 50+, that won't mind living out their lives on Mars. They can start building a colony that would sustain generations, and younger people with a return option can follow decades later (or be born there eventually). There are a lot of possibilities in making Mars sustainable, with plenty of water, oxygen and good ingredients for cement. An added advantage for NASA is that a programme where people remain will not easily be abandoned, that would be political suicide.

The biggest issue with the one-way ticket is culture. Ethics. Not to bring people back, to leave them there permanently, even if it is voluntary, that is a bit hard to swallow for politicians.

Hell no, I love our old blue earth too much, I'm still trying to save her instead of just grabbing my cases and fly off to mars

Seriously, a one-way ticket to mars really sounds like a bad idea. I'm very convinced that even if the colonists survive the trip (which I highly doubt) the resulting colony will sure as hell become a lawless hellhole before the next load of people will arive. "Welcome to paradise city..."

"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh

Mars One is a joke. Anyone with half a brain can see it's a suicide mission, no ifs, ands, or buts about it. The Martian climate itself will wipe out the colony long before the inevitable supply-chain failures get a chance to cause problems.

Roanoke wasn't the only lost colony in the New World, it's just the one that gets the most press.

It's also the first one that was identified in a timely manner. Even then, the first generation was gone and the only evidence of what happened to them were the light haired children with knowledge of European customs. Others, by the time they were found, had been gone longer and aside from a few stray genes in the native pool there's not much evidence of where they actually went. But the smart money's on the same thing as Roanoke - even Benjamin Franklin dabbled in native culture, and admitted returning to the hours and toil of his normal work was the hardest thing he'd ever done.

Quote:

There are a few reasons why it is more viable. Obviously the costs of the return verhicle are enormous, in fact, in the Appollo missions it added more than 50% to the costs I think. Mainly because of the significant weight it involves. With the current budget squeeze on space programmes, that matters a lot.

The best estimates for a one-way trip involve a higher budget because they require taking around three to five times as much weight for the trip (that counts fuel for the return). And that's the very optimistic ones, where food production would be secure with the first planting, no equipment would be lost, and certain resources (which we haven't found evidence of in rover exploration) can be secured within travel distance of the base site.

Quote:

But also we are talking about long missions. The mission time with returning the astronauts would take roughly 2 and a half years. It is very doubtful or exposure to no and low gravity for that lenght of time makes it possible for the astronauts to be more than cripples on earth, or even survive that at all.

That would include spending a year and a half in Martian gravity, keep in mind. Anyway, there's no actual doubt that they could survive this. Our longest space station stayovers have exceeded the total weightless time of a round trip to Mars (specifically to test just this), and the astronauts involved had no measurable loss of muscle mass. The only phsiological problem associated is a poorly understood period of severe depression right after several of them returned, which in all cases cleared in a few weeks without medication. There's also no progressive worsening from shorter stays of 3 or 6 months, strongly indicating that the pattern would continue indefinitely.

As for the time at Mars gravity, that's also something that can be simulated on Earth by keeping the head below the heart. Prolonged studies of that kind have suggested that a Mars mission lasting three years would be sustainable as long as the exercise regiment was adhered to. And NASA is already very strict about exercise.

Quote:

And that is worsened by the prolonged exposure to radiation, which is most risky during the space travel, which time is doubled in a return flight. So...the likelyhood of them not surviving a return is there already. So, an enormous amount of money for a very risky outcome.

Solutions to this have to happen either way - unshielded astronauts would most likely not survive the one way trip, either.

Look, it's pretty common knowledge that there is an alien installation hidden on Mars that, if activated, melts all the ice and generates a near-instant atmosphere. Mars will then turn into Vegas.

Also, there is a temple-like building in the form of a human face, that will initially suck people up and tear them apart, but if you discover the secret sound code, will turn out to be a spaceship that will take you to another star system where all the aliens went that used to live on Mars (Earth was not good enough for them to settle, but they did leave their DNA there).

I'm sure you are much more of an expert than me, but apparently NASA and a lot of respected scientists don't seem to agree with you. So don't argue with me on it.

Argue with Dirk Schulze-Makuch, professor at the School of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Washington State University, and Paul Davies, professor at Arizona State University as well as the Director of BEYOND (Center for Fundamental Concepts in Science). They seem to think it is a solution. They published a paper on it 2010 October-November issue of the Journal of Cosmology.

Since then NASA is taking the option under serious advisement.
NASA Ames Director Pete Worden revealed that one of NASA?s main research centres, Ames Research Centre, is going to do a study on this option, apparently, and funding for this (also from NASA) is in place.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...t-forever.html

I have actually been thinking about it I mean really I want to explore the unknown; I also would love to be the first man on Mars history will never forget my name.

It's an Achilles-dilemma.
Stay home, and you will have a loving family, kids, grandchildren, a happy life, and in two generations you will be forgotten.
Go to Troy and you will die there. But your name will live on into eternity.

It's an Achilles-dilemma.
Stay home, and you will have a loving family, kids, grandchildren, a happy life, and in two generations you will be forgotten.
Go to Troy and you will die there. But your name will live on into eternity.